Decline of NATO in Crimea

In 2014, when, with bated breath, I followed our actions in Crimea with my comrades, rooting for the success of the referendum, I didn’t know yet that my maternal grandfather laid down his head right there, on the peninsula, in May 1942.

Somewhere near Kerch.

Primary documents, reports within the framework of the project of the Ministry of Defense "Memorial" were published later.

The junior lieutenant was called up from there, the wife is such and such ... Since then, the latest Crimean history, in addition to the obvious political one, has also acquired a personal dimension.

Crimea is ours - and that's it.

His grandfather gave his life for him.

“What is won with our blood, blood, we will never give to the enemy.”

These words from an old, still Soviet song are probably familiar to the Russian commander in chief.

Actually, on the basis of this simple and clear creed, our polite military men sent to them, who defended the choice of people, acted in the midst of the Russian spring on the peninsula.

Now, after years of peaceful construction and strengthening of the defense of Crimea, it seems that the time has come for systemic measures to protect both the peninsula itself and the entire country.

After all, Crimea is now like a key to Russia.

Naturally, in the tug-of-war with the aggressive, without exaggeration, NATO bloc (namely, this is what mutual contacts of recent times look like), Vladimir Putin mentioned the peninsula as an example, illustrating the possible consequences of its thoughtless expansion to the east.

Kiev, he recalled, made the reconquest of the Crimea into its doctrine.

“Let's imagine that Ukraine is a member of NATO, stuffed with weapons and starts operations in Crimea.

This is sovereign Russian territory.

Should we fight the NATO bloc?

Has anyone thought about this at all?"

the president complained.

The media mouthpieces of the Anglo-Saxons - the Air Force and Radio Liberty * - immediately carried out "What are we to fight with the NATO bloc?" into the headlines. I suppose that in an attempt to interpret only rhetorical questions as evidence of Moscow's alleged unpreparedness for a collision with the military machine of the alliance. Here, they say, you see, this is beyond their strength. Although it is rather about demonstrating determination, if necessary, then to fight, about another attempt, using extremely harsh arguments, to reach out to the Westerners, to point out to them that the transfer of military infrastructure to our borders is unacceptable.

Putin also criticized NATO functionaries' references to the "open door" policy, in which, they say, each sovereign country has the right to independently determine whether to join the bloc.

And Brussels will decide whether to accept it or not.

It is important that we are talking about an opportunity, not a duty.

The criterion, obviously, is expediency.

If the admission of the applicant country will increase overall security - welcome.

But if not, why take it?

Such is the case with Ukraine.

Kiev's co-optation into a Western military alliance will only exacerbate the confrontation with Moscow.

Another thing is that they are not going to accept Ukraine into NATO.

If only because this country has more than one or even two territorial disputes, as well as problems with neighbors regarding the infringement of the rights of linguistic minorities.

Viktor Orban, after meeting with whom Putin paid so much attention to relations with the West on security issues, will not let you lie.

Transcarpathian Hungarians feel little better in Nezalezhnaya than Russians in the east of the country.

It is impossible to imagine that they will readily nod in response to Kiev's request to join NATO.

In general, NATO member countries are very different.

The bloc's newcomers, who in their Russophobia strive to be "holier than the Pope" - Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states - are completely balanced by the oldest and most powerful power in Europe - Germany.

“The admission of Ukraine to NATO is not on the agenda,” said German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit.

And there is also the president of Croatia, who has just branded London for irresponsibility (Boris Johnson flew to Kiev), and before that he called NATO an instrument of US policy.

With so many skeptics, Ukraine's admission to the alliance may not take place even in half a century.

In Kiev, of course, they understand, feel and worry.

But we are ready to join the “great” even with a carcass, even with a stuffed animal.

There is no other way to interpret the demarche of a group of deputies who recently staged a demonstration of the flags of NATO member states (USA, Canada, Britain) right in the meeting room of the Verkhovna Rada to the English-language cries - gratitude for the supply of weapons, it is impossible to interpret.

Lustiness of the highest order.

What a shame for the non-brothers.

But Ukraine is just a special case of Russia-NATO relations.

An artificial construct created by the West to annoy Moscow.

We have already learned how to stop the possessed.

Much more important is the overall framework relationship with the North Atlantic Alliance and its "control bloc" - the United States.

After the NATO functionaries “threw and deceived” our country, first promising to remain within the former borders, and then immediately starting several waves of expansion, there is no more faith in Brussels and Washington.

The security proposals from Russia are the last chance.

But he was not destined to be realized either.

The West’s response does not “adequately take into account Russia’s three key demands regarding the prevention of NATO expansion, the refusal to deploy strike weapons systems near Russian borders, and the return of the bloc’s military infrastructure in Europe to the state of 1997,” Putin stated after a meeting with Orban.

A little later, after the publication of the documents by the Spanish newspaper El País, this became clear to observers as well.

Just one touch: Russia was asked to withdraw troops from the Crimea, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

Well, aren't you rude?

Now thousands more American troops are also being deployed to Europe.

Stoltenberg was already happy.

And US satellites like Poland are fighting for the right to host them on their soil.

And how should Moscow react now?

There is no doubt that there should be a reaction.

Especially after the cryptic words of the former head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Mikhail Fradkov.

At a ceremony in the Kremlin, he noted that the next decisions of the commander-in-chief would require courage, and wished him to continue serving in his post as long as possible, not only as a guarantor of the Constitution, but also as a guarantor of security.

Fradkov knows something?..

*

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.